Corona regulations were deemed unconstitutional.
Spilling the Tea on Brandenburg's Constitutional Court Ruling
By Gunnar Schupelius
It's been five long years since the coronavirus rocked our world, and the political aftershocks are still being felt. The brief history of the pandemic in Brandenburg, a German state, has left an interesting mark.
The Brandenburg Constitutional Court made waves back in 2020, shaking things up with a ruling that left many scratching their heads. Seemingly swept under the rug amidst the deluge of pandemic news, the court declared that the state government's restrictions on assemblies imposed in May 2020 were unconstitutional (case number 45/20).
The AfD, or the Alternative for Germany, was the one to file a challenge, questioning the legality of these restrictions. Under the corona regulation of May 8, 2020, public and private events, as well as assemblies, were strictly prohibited—including private gatherings with your own household without an exception permit.
But things get a bit more complex when you delve into the details. The court declared these bans "null and void," stating they should never have been imposed in the first place. In doing so, they violated the very freedom of assembly granted by Article 23 of the state constitution (LV).
The Silent Standoff
Why did it take so long for this Constitutional Court ruling to make waves? Many reports overlooked it, even though the court had also validated the mask mandate in the same ruling. The focus was on the mask mandate, and the impact on the freedom of assembly was largely brushed aside.
The coronavirus swept across our nations in early 2020, and state governments, including Merkel and her ministers, reacted harshly without much concern for due process. When restrictions were placed on fundamental rights, they justified them with shaky reasoning at best.
The restrictions were a heavy blow, causing significant psychological and economic damage. Lies circulated by Merkel's team later came to light, such as the claim that vaccination would prevent the transmission of the virus. This was false, and yet, those who dared to question were met with ostracism and even persecution.
The Reckoning Still Holds Off
Five years later, the reckoning is still a work in progress. The lockdown has left a lasting impact on our country and has shaken many citizens' trust in politics. But why is it only the AfD pushing for this reckoning? Doesn't every party care about the erosion of fundamental rights?
In Brandenburg, the AfD was the one to take action by filing a constitutional challenge. But what about the other political parties? Haven't they noticed the breaches of fundamental rights? And what's going on in other state parliaments?
Citizens were suddenly forbidden from visiting each other or even sitting on a park bench back in 2020—a total overreach by politicians playing fast and loose with our freedoms. We can't let this happen again. That's why the Brandenburg ruling is so important.
Have something to say about all of this? Drop Gunnar Schupelius a line at [email protected]
Check out all columns by Gunnar Schupelius here
- The Brandenburg Constitutional Court ruling in 2020, which declared the state government's restrictions on assemblies unconstitutional (case number 45/20), is a significant example of policy-and-legislation in politics, as it invalidated the bans on gatherings and caused a ripple effect in the general news landscape.
- The ongoing debate regarding the politicized handling of fundamental rights during the coronavirus pandemic also involves discussions about policy-and-legislation, as parties like the Alternative for Germany (AfD) push for accountability, particularly seen in Brandenburg's Constitutional Court ruling and their challenge to the state government's restrictions.
